PARKVILLE, Md. -- Sanford M. Abrams began selling guns from his shop in Baltimore County in 1996 and almost immediately started losing track of them.

In 1997, he couldn't account for 45. In 2001, it was 133. In 2003, there were 422 firearms missing -- more than a quarter of his inventory -- including semiautomatic assault rifles, 12-gauge shotguns and Glock 9mm pistols, according to federal investigators.

This year, a decade after he started losing track of guns, Abrams's store lost its firearms license. But he still intends to sell guns.

Tale of Abrams and his Valley Gun Shop -- which regulators describe in court records as "a serial violator" that has "endangered the public" -- illustrates the difficulty government regulators face in shutting down even those dealers found to have persistently flouted the nation's gun laws. The controversy is the subject of fierce debate in Congress.

Abrams, a member of the National Rifle Association's board of directors, did not dispute the substance of more than 900 violations of federal gun laws filed against his store. But he called them unintentional recordkeeping errors that posed no threat to public safety and said it is impossible for anyone to comply with all firearms regulations.

Dispute has heightened scrutiny of new federal legislation, strongly backed by the NRA, that federal officials said would cripple their ability to revoke gun licenses. The bill, which would make it more difficult to close down gun shops without evidence of criminal intent, also could allow Valley Gun to resume sales of firearms, the lawmaker sponsoring the measure said.

Even if the bill is defeated, Abrams plans to use a provision in existing law to sell 700 guns left over from his shop's inventory at a soon-to-be-opened store called Just Guns, which will sell them on consignment.

>.In 1997, he couldn't account for 45. In 2001, it was 133. In 2003, there were 422 firearms missing -- more than a quarter of his inventory -- including semiautomatic assault rifles, 12-gauge shotguns and Glock 9mm pistols, according to federal investigators.<<

Gosh, you would think he's be losing a lot of money losing all those guns.

2
posted on 07/23/2006 2:51:42 PM PDT
by gondramB
(The options on the table have been there from the beginning. Withdraw and fail or commit and succeed)

Having worked in the firearms sales industry myself, this excuse for not keeping records on hundreds of guns is pure BS. The record keeping is pretty much Rule One through Rule Ten in the business, and anyone who doesn't can't be trusted to have a dealer's license, plain and simple. Too bad he's in the NRA, no excuse for violating such important and fundamental rules. It's sort of like a maternity hospital losing track of who and where all the babies are.

90% of the violations are 'bound book' violations - it's not that there's no record of a sale or transfer, it just isn't double recorded into the bound book, which they don't appreciate.

That's a clerical error, not a 'crime.'

Alas, our 25 years of records got munched on by some mice. We offered the records to them anyway, but they didn't think it'd be useful, so we disposed of most of them. Then again, our average for track requests ran about one every year and a half. Seems that lever actions, colts and Sharps aren't typically used in criminal actions.

4
posted on 07/23/2006 2:53:37 PM PDT
by kingu
(Yeah, I'll vote in 2006, just as soon as a party comes along who listens.)

"...Even if the bill is defeated, Abrams plans to use a provision in existing law to sell 700 guns left over from his shop's inventory at a soon-to-be-opened store called Just Guns, which will sell them on consignment...."

Maybe I can pick up a Vacquero Bisley there.

7
posted on 07/23/2006 3:40:47 PM PDT
by Renfield
(If Gene Tracy was the entertainment at your senior prom, YOU might be a redneck...)

...and anyone who doesn't can't be trusted to have a dealer's license, plain and simple.

In the US, there's this ancient, little used document I read recently, which had a section very much covering this subject:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you don't recognize that misused and abused old document, you can look it all up on Google under "Second Amendment to the Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791"

Now some say I only have a fleeting comprehension of the English language, and have only studied 5 others in the past, but I have a bit of trouble understanding how one can make the leap from those simple, eminently understandable, difficult to mis-construe words to requiring a Federal government license to own, possess, use, sell, trade or play with "Arms", especially "firearms".

It's sort of like a maternity hospital losing track of who and where all the babies are.

The last time I looked [and I've worked in the healthcare field], a hospital isn't required to have a Federal license to deliver babies. And if they misplace a few, which happens on a regular basis [just ask any PI, ambulance chasing trial lawyer like John Edwards], they have no FEDERAL license to revoke, unlike the above reference gun shop. And I can't for the life of me find in my copy of the US Constitution where hosptals, medical services or similar are required to have FEDERAL licenses. State licenses, yes. Federal, no. [And don't bring up the JCAH because it's not even applicable here.]

I agree that the record keeping could be sloppy, but I'm pretty sure that there is still no Constitutional authority for him to originate, keep and maintain those records and that his problems most likely stem from being with the NRA and a thorn in the jackbooted thugs of the BATFE's side... not his poor recordkeeping.

Note that his shop is "37th" ranked. What are the same JBT's doing about the 1 through 36th shops? Or maybe, they aren't as loud in their objections against the unConstitutional record keeping and licensing requirement, and aren't members of the NRA.

...can't be trusted to have a dealer's license?? He shouldn't have to have one. Or maybe you would prefer to live in the "Your Paperz Pleez" fascist/socialist state instead of a free Constitutional Republic, as this country used to be- before the socialists, with help from people with attitudes like you, turned it.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."--James Madison

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."--Thomas Jefferson

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."--Albert Gallatin (1789)

"A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!"--Alexander Hamilton

Or maybe you would subscribe more to these sentiments:

"We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism." -- Nikita Khrushchev, speaking of Roosevelt's "New Deal"

8
posted on 07/23/2006 3:53:55 PM PDT
by hadit2here
("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)

Gun shops are subjected to pointless paperwork and nothing has proven it deters crime in any way. The point is all those regulations are impossible to comply with because there are too many of them. We have a plethora of gun control laws on the books and they haven't caught ONE criminal with a gun he wasn't allowed to have and all they have done is forced law-abiding citizens out of business. That's wrong in a free country.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)

9
posted on 07/23/2006 3:59:11 PM PDT
by goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

They are - and while we're on the subject of inventory, the Pentagon can't keep track of its inventory! If the Pentagon can't, then how is a gun shop supposed to be able to account for every gun it sells? ATF bureaucrats are going after gun dealers for technical record-keeping errors. Which still hasn't stopped one criminal. No business in the world has total control over inventory. That's the point.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)

10
posted on 07/23/2006 4:03:57 PM PDT
by goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

I'm behind you 100%. Don't get me wrong. However, if someone wants to drive a car they have get a driver's license, obey the law, have insurance, etc. If they don't comply the will pay the consequences. Complaining about all the restrictions and requirements on driving a car doesn't do any good at all.

Maintaining firearm records is a time consuming hassle - been there, done that many, many times. If it's not done properly the dealer loses his license, and complaining about the constitutionality of any and all gun laws doesn't help a bit. Step One is not getting yourself into a vulnerable position. Having a defiant attitude in the face of people who can, and will, ruin your whole day is not very smart.

There are a number of ways, mostly futile, of getting gun laws changed. Staging a "resistance" movement at your place of business, your livelihood, is not smart. The BATF will gladly swoop down and make you very sorry you did.

I don't know if this guy is genuinely careless and lazy, or if he has a chip on his shoulder about how he's going to personally deal with the BATF. Whatever his problem is, he will almost certainly lose big time. In the process, he will add even more anti-NRA, anti-gun fuel to the fire. We don't need boneheaded jerks making things worse.

In the years leading up to the Gun Control Act of 1968, you could buy a gun for cash, no records kept, no ID required.

I grew up in the 60's. In 1967, with little significant gun control, a little kid could bicycle through large areas of most big cities without any worries. That's because we concentrated on keeping bad guys in jail, instead of trying to make the world a big playpen for psychopaths

14
posted on 07/23/2006 4:18:58 PM PDT
by SauronOfMordor
(A planned society is most appealing to those with the arrogance to think they will be the planners)

Gun shops are subjected to pointless paperwork and nothing has proven it deters crime in any way

You are absolutely correct. Most gun laws don't have any effect on crime. Years ago there was a requirement to keep log books on ammo sales. I don't remember now how or why that record keeping requirement got dropped. Recently a cop shop I used to work in went out of business, and a friend there gave me the old ammo log books as a souvenir. I went through them remembering names and faces from years past, and found a lot of my own entries in those books. I keep them as a reminder of how screwed up thinks can get, like the proposal some idiot in Congress made to put serial numbers on bullets.

The point I'm trying to make is that an individual dealer cannot, absolutely cannot, try to push and shove the BATF into seeing things his way. The dealer cannot, absolutely cannot, break the rules 900+ plus times and expect to prevail against the BATF.

Try to convince a state trooper not to give you a ticket after he clocked you at 100 mph, with no driver's license, no insurance card, and an open beer in one hand. It's the same kind of situation, and no amount of attitude and chutzpah is going to save you from getting whacked.

Ahem, did you even look at the source of this "story" [considering the source, I couldn't justify it with the title "article"]? Most all of the details will have either been left out if they are inconvenient and pro-gun owner, or changed/perverted to the Compost's anti-gun slant.

So no, you are not going to be able to really get much objective information on "if this guy is genuinely careless and lazy, or if he has a chip on his shoulder". That just won't promote their anti-gun stance like making this guy sound like a raving lunatic who gives away gunnnnz to every crook and gang member in town.

And notice where his shop is located. Baltimore County, MD. What are the odds of any gun sold by his store in the last 10 years being tracked to a crime, as opposed to guns sold from a store in Whitefish, Montana?? Geeez, I'm sure there'll be a bunch tracked back to him just 'cuz of his being in a socialist, gun-control area, high crime rate area. He could've had every paper for every gun he ever sold, in addition to copies of all background checks, and the guns would still have turned up in crimes. That's just how it is in high crime areas.

"In the process, he will add even more anti-NRA, anti-gun fuel to the fire. We don't need boneheaded jerks making things worse."

I can agree somewhat on the general sentiment, but again you have to consider the source of this piece of garbage. This guy could be one of the true Apostles, rescuing every stray dog and kitten, giving his earnings away to orphanages, and supporting his invalid mom and he'd be portrayed as a weirdo, off-his-meds psychopath by the Compost. I doubt he would have gotten to the position he has with the NRA if he was in fact as deranged as they try to make him out to be. After all, even the NRA is political and, as you say, doesn't "need boneheaded jerks making things worse". But the story sure tries to make it seem that way, doesn't it? Especially if NRA and pro-gun people like you are raising the question in so many words... 'nuff said.

So I doubt he neither was nor has been staging a "resistance movement" at his place of business. Just taking the source of this wild pro-gungrabber story into consideration, I'd say just the opposite and the JBT's are out to get him.

If you wonder why I say that, I just have a very vivid memory of some "news" video locally here that showed heavily armed, body armored, helmeted, - and yes, jack booted - thugs arresting a local doctor and confiscating his office records. Why? He was said to have been prescribing too large of dosages of vitamin B to his patients. I kid you NOT!

So I can surely just imagine what they would be doing to a guy who sells eeeeevil guns and who's not exactly a vocal cheerleader for the BATFE.

Call me paranoid or whatever...

16
posted on 07/23/2006 4:37:43 PM PDT
by hadit2here
("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)

Once again, you're right. I'm with you all the way. BUT, if a gun dealer wants to keep his license and stay out of prison, he has to obey the laws as they currently exist. If a gun dealer carelessly or willfully disobeys the gun laws that apply to him, he's going down. The obvious answer is to stay within the law and comply - until such time as a gun law or city ordinance can be changed. This is all Step One stuff, and this guy apparently didn't follow through. That's the only point I'm try to make - don't make yourself vulnerable by being stupid.

I firmly believe "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. I think most gun laws are unconstitutional. However, if I want to operate as a licensed gun dealer I know I'm going to have to comply with a lot of bullcrap I don't like and don't believe in. If a person doesn't want to comply with those laws AND wants to stay out of prison, he's pretty much limited to a few casual sales out of his basement or at gun shows. If a licensed dealer blows the compliance requirements, he's going down. So ---- don't blow the compliance. That's Step One.

The BATFE managed NFRTR is a shambles, a well known fact, complete with congressional testimony, money allocated by congress to correct the problem, and continued BATFE denial that the problem exist.

Anyone in possession of an NFA item that BATFE has misplaced or totally lost the records on is looking at a $250,000 fine, up to five years in prison, and forfeiture of the item, which is probably very valuable.

But hey, BATFE are not required to abide by the same standards they impose on the dealers they license!

21
posted on 07/23/2006 4:58:14 PM PDT
by Richard-SIA
("The natural progress of things is for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield" JEFFERSON)

That's why gun dealers are leaving the business. Its impossible to comply with what - 30,000 laws on the books? No one could get the time to know them all. And as for the criminals, they don't care about the law and if the legitimate gun dealers go out of business, they can still buy guns on the black market. The BATF guys are none the wiser and still haven't caught the rogue dealers and the criminals because they can't be traced. Its all an exercise in bone-headed, time-wasting stupidity. Which pretty much is the whole idea behind liberalism.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)

22
posted on 07/23/2006 5:00:43 PM PDT
by goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

Another very good point! If BATF can't manage its own records with the resources they have, how in the world can gun shops do what BATF can't? Its time to end the double standard or at the very least subject BATF to the same rules it imposes on gun dealers. Fair's fair.

(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em, Down Hezbullies.)

23
posted on 07/23/2006 5:03:06 PM PDT
by goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)

BATFE are not required to abide by the same standards they impose on the dealers they license!

Well stated, and true. That's exactly why it doesn't make sense to leave yourself vulnerable. A dealer who is a model of compliance has a leg to stand on in court, and a dealer with 900+ violations of any kind whatsoever does not have a leg to stand on in court.

Whatever his problem is, he will almost certainly lose big time. In the process, he will add even more anti-NRA, anti-gun fuel to the fire. We don't need boneheaded jerks making things worse.

I firmly believe "shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. I think most gun laws are unconstitutional. However, if I want to operate as a licensed gun dealer I know I'm going to have to comply with a lot of bullcrap I don't like and don't believe in.

I'm behind you 100%. Don't get me wrong...

You're calling a man defending his right to sell guns without being hassled by bureaucrats a boneheaded jerk. --- It's pretty easy to 'get you wrong'.

You're calling a man defending his right to sell guns without being hassled by bureaucrats a boneheaded jerk. --- It's pretty easy to 'get you wrong'.

I believe he should fight back, but he blew most of his chances by not fully complying with laws he knew he would have to comply with. Compliance is the other half of the coin of accepting any kind of license. That's the ONLY, THE ONLY point I'm trying to make. I agree 100% with all the constitutional arguments. Lack of compliance got him in trouble in the first place, and the finest most eloquent defense of his constitutional rights is badly crippled as a result. That's the whole point.

I agree 100%. However, a dealer who cannot or will not comply with the BATF laws should not be trusted with a license. The rougue dealers that knowingly sell to gangstas out of state, or off the books, poison the well for all the rest. Since the rougues do exist, they provide the MSM and the BATF with all the ammo they need to persecute honest dealers who are lazy and careless with their books. In the minds of the MSM and the BATF there's not much difference, if any at all, with a careless, lazy dealer and a rogue dealer - it's a gun dealer in violation of the law. A dealer in violation can't be trusted, and shouldn't be. So, ......... don't be in violation of the law, no matter what you feel about those laws. There are much better avenues for changing gun laws that trying to mount a successful defense after getting caught with 900+ violations.

Please READ WHERE THE F##$%^ ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN AT!!! There is NOTHING that you can believe about any gun dealer from anything written by the Compost. What several of us are trying to 'splain to you is that we don't really disagree that you have to go along to get along. THAT is not the point.

You are naively trusting the WaPo to give you objective, factual information about a gun dealer and his business. That will historically not ever happen. Like I said before, this guy could be a Saint and the WaPo and BATFE would make him sound like Capone's right hand gun supplier. That's all we're trying to point out to you.

Just the fact that YOU, as pro-gun, pro-2nd Amend that you are, are falling for their negative reporting about this guy is telling. If they can make YOU fall for the eeeeeevil gun dealer story, think about what happens when some sub-80 IQ liberal, socialist soccer mom reads how this eeeeevil gun dealer is supplying half the East coast with unregistered eeeevil gunzzzzzz. They would hang him in a heartbeat. And vote remove the 2nd Amend. - fer the chilrun...

This is exactly why I will not watch the national snooze programs and will only ocassionally watch the local teevee snooze media-- (only for the whether you know, the Whether guys who need to stick their head out the window to determine "whether" its raining or not). They are the biggest propaganda machines for the left, liberal socialists. They slant their stories, they leave out facts (if they ever got them), they distort everything to their liberal, socialist agenda. And YOU fell for it.

No, I'm not a raving, paranoid conspiracy lunatic. I just can see beyond their krappy™ "reporting" and slanting of the stories. It's become so obvious to me that if the WaPo said the sky was blue, I'd go outside to check to make sure. Because based upon their historical accuracy, their chance of being correct is vanishingly small. And that's on a relatively objective, well known fact. Take an emotional leftist agenda like gun grabbing and they are always incorrect and without accurate facts.

So please, pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Don't rely on the smoke and mirrors that the liberal left use to blow smoke up YOUR skirt.

That's all several of us were trying to point out.

All the best.

29
posted on 07/23/2006 6:03:24 PM PDT
by hadit2here
("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)

You're calling a man defending his right to sell guns without being hassled by bureaucrats a boneheaded jerk. --- It's pretty easy to 'get you wrong'.

I believe he should fight back, but he blew most of his chances by not fully complying with laws he knew he would have to comply with.

Amusing theory you have. -- If he 'fully complied' with the unconstitutional 'laws', he wouldn't be in trouble, and have to 'fight back'.

Compliance is the other half of the coin of accepting any kind of license. That's the ONLY, THE ONLY point I'm trying to make.

Ah, - so you claim none of us should have ever 'accepted' a FFL license? I agree. -- But seeing it was only a 1 dollar a year 'formality' back in '38, our fathers were conned into it by big bro.

I agree 100% with all the constitutional arguments. Lack of compliance got him in trouble in the first place, and the finest most eloquent defense of his constitutional rights is badly crippled as a result.

In effect you're arguing that he was damned if he did, - or didn't, - get a license.

He came to the attention of the BATF. How or why doesn't matter. Any dealer can be inspected at any time without advance notice. Dealers know this, and any dealer who doesn't have his books in order will have to come up with a really good sob story. His only viable defense at any point would be to have his books in order, so that he can defend himself in court. It doesn't matter in the slightest HOW his inspection came about, it only matters that he was found not complying with the law. That's the only thing the BATF needs to pull his license and possibly pursue criminal charges, if any.

I feel sorry for this guy and all the other dealers who are honest but sloppy bookkeepers. That doesn't change what the guy's going to be put through. He could have avoided all this by keeping his books in order - STEP ONE. Everything else is noise in the wind.

One of the cop shops I used to work at went out of business last year. A friend of mine there was kept on for several months *as the only other employee* until all the decades' worth of firearm records could be organized and boxed up. It amounted to several large pickup truck loads, and all the boxes had to be accurately labeled as to contents. It took months of hard work to do this. The owner of the defunct company could have put on an attitude and just left the stuff in the old building. Since he didn't want to be hauled into Federal court and prosecuted, he put in the time and money to gather up and turn over the records as the BATF laws require. He won't be hauled into Federal court - because he complied with laws he knew up front that he was going to have to comply with.

It doesn't matter in the slightest if this ex-cop-shop owner liked it, believed in it, or approved of it. It only matters that he complied with the requirement to turn over those records or face some serious Federal prosecution. It's a requirement that every FFL holder has. Fail to comply, get ready for a rough ride.

There's better ways to fight the battle against us gun owners than trying to mount a successful defense after getting caught with a multitude of violations.

IMHO, this is just part of a broader runup in anti-gun stories for the coming election. Anything which can be used against the NRA will be, in an effort to hobble the NRA's efforts against anti-RKBA political candidates.

Keep in mind that Governor Erlich was elected in part for his stance on the 'ballistic fingerprinting' issue and general statements which indicated a sentiment toward repealing useless gun laws, and this has state/local implications as well.

In general, there seems to be an increase in eeeevil gun stories out there, (though it may just be my perception). I expect that the rhetoric will get worse as November approaches.

On the brighter side, it illustrates that the Dems plan to continue their anti-gun rhetoric, which has already cost them votes at the state and national levels.

It doesn't matter in the slightest HOW his inspection came about, it only matters that he was found not complying with the law. That's the only thing the BATF needs to pull his license and possibly pursue criminal charges, if any.

Then there is no barrier to regulating gun ownership into obscurity.

33
posted on 07/23/2006 6:55:54 PM PDT
by tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)

That's what they're trying to do, all right. To fight back you have to be standing on firm ground and not be vulnerable. This dealer's going into battle after shooting off his own leg clear up to the hip.

That's what they're trying to do, all right. To fight back you have to be standing on firm ground and not be vulnerable. This dealer's going into battle after shooting off his own leg clear up to the hip.

"Not being vulnerable" amounts to complying with their regulations, no matter how onerous they become. Before you have standing to challenge the rules in court, you have to be charged with being out of compliance. Sounds like a fool's game to me.

35
posted on 07/23/2006 7:09:25 PM PDT
by tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)

Exactly!! Even if I never paid attention to politics and the calendar, around here locally I can always tell when it is an election year. All of a sudden, the local leftist rag starts regularly running stories on police busts of prostitution or dirty book stores. Never fails. Doesn't have to be a national election year, just one where locals are being elected by trumpeting how "hard on crime" they are. Local sheriffs are bad, but the leftist pols who "own" them (viz. are their "elected" bosses) will make sure there are plenty of fodder for those stories. And the local leftist rags just salivate to spread them across the front page. What in the previous non-election year would end up page D-9 in the police blotter- if then- now gets front page above the fold on a slow news day. "It's fer the chilrun"... and all that horsepucky.

Same thing is starting with gunshops if there's a liberal, leftist who thinks he/she can "buy" the lawnorder votes of the naive socialist soccer moms. And in the blue cities around here, there's plenty of both of those to go around. [Think Patty Murray in Seattle, Gov. Queen Christine, etc. The latter who holds office only by the obvious and documented corruption of King County elections.]

Yup, crack down on the ho's, porn and guns, but go easy on the meth, crack, murderers, rapists and serial killers- because they vote Democrat.

This is what I was trying to point out to the DumpsterHead guy... the gun dealer doesn't have to do anything to be targeted, and if he is, there isn't anything he can do about it. And the WaPo will make a saint look like a mafia hitman to further the gungrabbing.

And once they have selected you, it doesn't make any difference how good your paperwork is, you are going down. Too bad the BATFE can't meet their own paperwork criteria, as noted by some other posters.

36
posted on 07/23/2006 7:41:23 PM PDT
by hadit2here
("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)

BRADY BUNCH COORDINATING WITH WAPO! The BBs issued a report called "Death Valley" (I am not making this up) about this situation within the last week or ten days now it shows up in the Wapo as a story. I have to get to work and could only scan the story but didn't see the BB listed.

I seem to recall a fellow named John Lee Malvo who not too long ago went on a shooting spree. Caused a lot of damage, both in the original crime (killing and terrorizing folks), and in the more intangible, but equally important public perception of gun owners.

I doubt any of us would care to be lumped in with the likes of Malvo but, in some eyes, lumped in we are. During the subsequent investigation it was revealed that the weapon used by Malvo came from a Washington state gun store (Bullseye Shooters Supply). It turns out that the AR-15 that was used by Malvo and Muhammad "fell through the cracks" at Bullseye (records show it shipped to the store, but no paper trail of it leaving the store). Damn!

The criminal incompetence of folks who have no business dealing in guns left all of us open to the gun-grabbers who weren't hesitant to seize upon the opportunity to characterize us all as J.L. Malvo's. I can see your point DB - We have to work from within the structure as it exists, not how we would like it to exist. As much as I see the desirability of this legislation, if you're going to be dealing in guns show some freaking common sense!

45
posted on 07/29/2006 11:28:02 AM PDT
by rockrr
(Never argue with a man who buys ammo in bulk...)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.